US signs ACTA

The US and seven other countries have signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade …

The United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on Saturday, an accord targeting intellectual property piracy.

The European Union, Mexico and Switzerland—the only other governments participating in the accord’s creation—did not sign the deal at a ceremony in Japan but "confirmed their continuing strong support for and preparations to sign the agreement as soon as practical," the parties said in a joint statement.

The United States applauded the deal.

"As with many of the challenges we face in today's global economy, no government can single-handedly eliminate the problem of global counterfeiting and piracy. Signing this agreement is therefore an act of shared leadership and determination in the international fight against intellectual property theft," said Mariam Sapiro, deputy United States trade representative.

The deal, more than three years in the making and open for signing until May 2013, exports on participating nations an intellectual-property enforcement regime resembling the one in the United States.

Rashmi Rangnath, a staff attorney with Public Knowledge in Washington, DC, said the deal "clearly, is an attempt to foist US law on other countries."

Among other things, the accord demands governments make it unlawful to market devices that circumvent copyright, such as devices that copy encrypted DVDs without authorization. That is akin to a feature in the the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States, where the law has been used by Hollywood studios to block RealNetworks from marketing DVD-copying technology.

The accord, which the United States says does not require Congressional approval, also calls on participating nations to maintain extensive seizure and forfeiture laws when it comes to counterfeited goods that are trademarked or copyrighted. Most important, countries must carry out a legal system where victims of intellectual property theft may be awarded an undefined amount of monetary damages.

In the United States, for example, the Copyright Act allows for damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. A Boston jury has dinged a college student $675,000 for pilfering 30 tracks on Kazaa, while a Minnesota jury has awarded the Recording Industry Association of America $1.5 million for the purloining of 24 songs online.

A US-backed footnote removed from the document more than a year ago provided for "the termination" of Internet accounts for repeat online infringers. US internet service providers and content providers, however, have brokered such a deal toward that goal.

Until European Union authorities began leaking the document’s text, the Obama administration was claiming the accord was a "national security" secret.

How could they think they can bypass the Senate? Let's just get rid of that nasty legislative branch while we're at it--they're always in the way.

The treaty is an agreement between countries to have or enact laws that meet the treaty's stipulations. The US already has these laws in place.

But doesn't such a treaty hinder the legislative branch from changing those laws in the future? Can the executive branch really enter an international agreement that locks current law from being revised in the future?

How could they think they can bypass the Senate? Let's just get rid of that nasty legislative branch while we're at it--they're always in the way.

The treaty is an agreement between countries to have or enact laws that meet the treaty's stipulations. The US already has these laws in place.

But doesn't such a treaty hinder the legislative branch from changing those laws in the future? Can the executive branch really enter an international agreement that locks current law from being revised in the future?

They'd just say that we're not going to be a part of it any more. But that by itself would be a huge amount of work, so they probably won't. Sigh.

OK, so what about that "fair use" or whatever? I'm allowed to rip my DVDs for my own use (iPhone, iPad, etc.) but it's illegal to crack the copy protection so how the fuck am I supposed to backup those DVDs?

OK, so what about that "free use" or whatever? I'm allowed to rip my DVDs for my own use (iPhone, iPad, etc.) but it's illegal to crack the copy protection so how the fuck am I supposed to backup those DVDs?

Note that this has been the status quo in the US since the DMCA was signed into law in 1996, and that hasn't really stopped anyone so far. Unlike downloads over the internet, there is no practical way for movie publishers to obtain court-admissible evidence of home DVD/BluRay ripping of their copyrighted works, so the law can be broken with relative impunity.

OK, so what about that "free use" or whatever? I'm allowed to rip my DVDs for my own use (iPhone, iPad, etc.) but it's illegal to crack the copy protection so how the fuck am I supposed to backup those DVDs?

Note that this has been the status quo in the US since the DMCA was signed into law in 1996, and that hasn't really stopped anyone so far. Unlike downloads over the internet, there is no practical way for movie publishers to obtain court-admissible evidence of home DVD/BluRay ripping of their copyrighted works, so the law can be broken with relative impunity.

Right, but the tools to do so are still available for download and/or purchase. What if they go out of their way to block them?

OK, so what about that "free use" or whatever? I'm allowed to rip my DVDs for my own use (iPhone, iPad, etc.) but it's illegal to crack the copy protection so how the fuck am I supposed to backup those DVDs?

Note that this has been the status quo in the US since the DMCA was signed into law in 1996, and that hasn't really stopped anyone so far. Unlike downloads over the internet, there is no practical way for movie publishers to obtain court-admissible evidence of home DVD/BluRay ripping of their copyrighted works, so the law can be broken with relative impunity.

Right, but the tools to do so are still available for download and/or purchase. What if they go out of their way to block them?

More likely they'll simply be hosted in non-signatory jurisdictions, and/or the games of whack-a-mole will continue.

OK, so what about that "free use" or whatever? I'm allowed to rip my DVDs for my own use (iPhone, iPad, etc.) but it's illegal to crack the copy protection so how the fuck am I supposed to backup those DVDs?

Note that this has been the status quo in the US since the DMCA was signed into law in 1996, and that hasn't really stopped anyone so far. Unlike downloads over the internet, there is no practical way for movie publishers to obtain court-admissible evidence of home DVD/BluRay ripping of their copyrighted works, so the law can be broken with relative impunity.

Right, but the tools to do so are still available for download and/or purchase. What if they go out of their way to block them?

With the agreement of major ISPs in the US to disconnect repeat copyright infringers (which Ars seemed to by a cheerleader for at firs, tsk tsk) and now ACTA they are really working towards closing the Internet.

But it does charge citizens crazy sums of money if they're caught doing the equivilent of shoplifting a cd from a record store.

One of those activities robs the original owner of possession and the ability to sell to a legitimate customer. Copying a digital file is hardly "equivalent" to shoplifting.

Yes. However the point of the comparison is to point out the fact that the consequences of actual shoplifting are far less severe. What is the social value of preventing software piracy? It's probably less than the social value of discouraging shoplifting. Yet the consequences are far FAR greater.

With the agreement of major ISPs in the US to disconnect repeat copyright infringers (which Ars seemed to by a cheerleader for at firs, tsk tsk) and now ACTA they are really working towards closing the Internet.

But this is going to be pretty damn funny when you start seeing big names such as entire sports stadiums being disconnected from the internet based on accusation. ETA until a town's local government gets pulled from the internet?

Achilles hereby proclaims that he finds the use of his image in violation of his established trademark claims and the use thereof not within the public domain, as provided by the 3000 year extension provided by power vested in the "Father of Gods and Men", Zeus. Therefore, he formally issues a Cease and Desist Order to Ars Technica regarding the use of his likeness in violation of the Multi-Millennial Copyright Act and demands that the image attached to this article be removed.

How could they think they can bypass the Senate? Let's just get rid of that nasty legislative branch while we're at it--they're always in the way.

The treaty is an agreement between countries to have or enact laws that meet the treaty's stipulations. The US already has these laws in place.

But doesn't such a treaty hinder the legislative branch from changing those laws in the future? Can the executive branch really enter an international agreement that locks current law from being revised in the future?

Constitutionally speaking, treaties are the law of the land, and are arguably higher in priority than our domestic laws. So it's entirely legal, from that perspective. Shitty we signed it, though. :/

Protecting the corporation at the expense of the common man yet again, eh? I hope those Wall Street protests erupt into a horrible, bloody riot (lets see the news media try to suppress -that- story). Our aristocracy is out of control; it's about time for history to repeat itself.

Good to see my home country (NZ) making up the numbers</sarcasm>. Good dogie - you can have a free trade agreement - if you continue to do as we tell you to...

You've just largely harmonised your copyright laws with the United States, what do you expect? Canada will likewise. Australia did so in 2006. Albeit in the non-US anglosphere we're talking specific fair dealing exemptions not general fair use, which alters the whole copyright dynamic. Additionally the safe harbour and notice/counter-notice systems are of somewhat different application in each state (but, say for Australia where they've been in place for a while are used far, far less frequently).

In Australia, region-locks on game consoles, BluRay players and DVD players have been ruled illegal. Our top consumer protection body, the ACCC, ruled that modchips are an acceptable way for consumers to work around this "illegal restraint of trade". They have actually encouraged users to install modchips over the past few years, arguing that it allows consumers to reclaim their legal entitlements.

This agreement contradicts that position. So we have one Government body encouraging modchip use, and another body signing laws that would make them illegal. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

If you actually decide you want to pay for content in Morocco, pretty much the only way to buy it is pirated CDs and DVDs from street vendors and in the marketplaces. Seriously. In a few major cities, there are malls big enough to have stores that sell real, licensed content, but most of that is priced out of reach for most people in Morocco.